Surgical device maker hit with $10m damages in stapler patent dispute
Lawsuit centred on methods for stapling tissue during surgery | Delaware federal jury found in favour of Rex Medical.
A Delaware federal jury has handed a win to Rex Medical in its dispute with Intuitive Surgical over a surgical stapler, ruling that it must receive damages of $10 million.
The US District Court for the District of Delaware delivered the decision on Wednesday, October 19.
In January 2019, Rex Medical sued Intuitive, alleging that its SureForm 60 surgical stapler infringed patents covering methods for stapling tissue during surgery.
According to the complaint, the asserted patents were US numbers 9,439,650 and 10,136,892, which cover devices that can both cut and staple tissue almost simultaneously, and also allow for the efficient sealing of cut tissue during a resection.
The medical device company held that these inventions marked a sea change in the surgical field as the need to remove parts or all of a tissue or organ can arise from a variety of reasons, such as lesions, stomach reduction, and gastro-esophageal reflux.
During a surgical resection, the targeted tissue must be surgically cut away from the non-targeted tissue, ie, the tissue that is to remain in the body.
Because some tissue is cut, there is a simultaneous need to seal the cut tissue so that the remaining, non-targeted tissue is not left open and exposed. According to Rex Medical, its surgical stapler devices offered such a solution.
The complaint noted that the ’650 patent, entitled “Apparatus and method for resectioning gastroesophageal tissue”, was issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office in September 2016.
The ’892 patent titled “Apparatus and method for resectioning gastroesophageal tissue” was then issued by the US agency in November 2018.
Rex Medical held that Intuitive proceeded to infringe several claims in these patents with the introduction of its SureForm 60 stapler in 2018.
This week, the jury in Wilmington, Delaware, agreed that Rex Medical had provided sufficient evidence to prove infringement.
LSIPR has approached both parties for comment.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
